REPORT OF THE NICOLE WORKSHOP Brownfields: How to change a potential

Transcription

REPORT OF THE NICOLE
WORKSHOP
Brownfields: How to change a potential
threat into an asset
9 and 10 November 2000
IJmuiden, The Netherlands
Ministry of Economic Affairs
Paul Bardos, r3 Environmental Technology Limited
REPORT OF THE NICOLE WORKSHOP Brownfields: How to Change a Potential Threat into an Asset, 9 and
10 November 2000, IJmuiden, The Netherlands
Acknowledgement
NICOLE gratefully acknowledges the support for this workshop given by Corus, HBG, the Ministry of
Economic Affairs of the Netherlands and Duravermeer. It also acknowledges the efforts of those
involved in organising the programme, in particular Cees Buijs.
1 Introduction
NICOLE (Network for Contaminated Land in Europe) was set up in 1995 as a result of the CEFIC
“SUSTECH” programme which promotes co-operation between industry and academia on the
development of sustainable technologies. NICOLE is the principal forum that European business
uses to develop and influence the state of the art in contaminated land management in Europe.
NICOLE was created to bring together problem holders and researchers throughout Europe who are
interested in all aspects of contaminated land. It is open to public and private sector organisations.
NICOLE was initiated as a Concerted Action within the European Commission’s Environment and
Climate RTD Programme in 1996. It has been self-funding since February 1999.
NICOLE initiated a meeting about brownfields remediation and redevelopment as part of its ongoing
conference series, which is outlined in Table 1, as a result of members’ intense interest in the
brownfields debate. The two other principal European contaminated land networks took part in the
workshop: ANCORE and CLARINET. NICOLE and CLARINET have a long standing working
relationship, which has recently been expanded to encompass the new network ANCORE. A feature
of NICOLE's relationship with ANCORE and CLARINET is an open invitation to their participants to
attend NICOLE meetings.
The meeting was intended to serve three purposes, to:
•
promote an exchange of information,
•
serve as a platform for debate, and
•
stimulate research proposal ideas and collaborations for the a call for proposals for the 5th
Framework Programme, FP51 , released on November 15th 2000, in the programme Energy,
Environment and Sustainable Development (EESD)2 .
The programme included a series of expert presentations in parallel sessions and sessions for proposal
development:
•
•
•
•
•
Status reports for ANCORE, CLARINET and NICOLE
Brownfields papers from DGXII and Michigan, USA
Parallel sessions on brownfields (each comprising given papers and discussions)
−
Industry and service providers
−
Regulators and service providers
−
Academics and service providers
Report back and plenary
Development of project proposals
This meeting is the second NICOLE conference for 2000. The previous conference (Finland, May
2000) focused on the problems of source management. Further information on this meeting is
available as a meeting report, outlined in Annex 3. Recent and forthcoming NICOLE meetings in
general are summarised in Table 1.
1
2
Web link: www.cordis.lu/fp5/home.html
Web link: www.cordis.lu/eesd/calls/ a_200001.htm
Page 2
2 Status reports for ANCORE, CLARINET and NICOLE
2.1 ANCORE
There is a need for a better information exchange and co-ordination within the scientific community
working in the field of contaminated land in Europe to solve complex environmental problems in an
ecological acceptable and cost-effective manner, as demanded by several EU directives. This should
lead to an improvement in participation within EU projects and should also help the EU in the
definition of future research needs.
After numerous discussions between different research groups within the last couple of months, an
Academic Network on Contaminated land Research within Europe (ANCORE) was initiated by the
Centre for Applied Geosciences at the University of Tòbingen (www.uni-tuebingen.de/geo/zag/ ).
ANCORE should provide a platform for an exchange of ideas and the dissemination of results (new
technologies, methods etc.). Based on its independent structure and its scientific focus. ANCORE will
interact closely with other already existing networks like NICOLE and CLARINET. ANCORE has
the potential to become an important source of know-how for the problem owners and regulators
Table 1: Recent and Forthcoming NICOLE Events and Publications
Date
October /
November 2001
17-18 May 2001
January 2001
September 2000
October 2000
September 2000
21-23 June 2000
22-23 May 2000
Event / Report
Workshop on ICT/Computing applied to contaminated land
characterisation/remediation, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (Port of
Rotterdam) in conjunction with the Network on Natural Attenuation in
Groundwater and Soil (NNAGS).
Workshop: “Cost effective remediation: quality & sustainability” best practice examples / how to reduce costs, Paris, France
(TotalFinaElf)
Special Issue of Land Contamination and Reclamation, outlining
NICOLE and CLARINET work and supporting proposals to the
second call of FP5. Web link: www.btinternet.com/~epppublications/
Consoil 2000 EU dimension workshop
NICOLE News, Web link: www.nicole.org Information gateway:
NICOLE News Service – Announcement 120
Joint Statement of NICOLE, CLARINET, ETCA and SENSPOL:
Sustainable Management of Contaminated Land for the Protection of
Water Resources, Web link: www.nicole.org Information gateway:
NICOLE News Service – Announcement 112
EU Workshop on The Protection of European Water, Resources,
Contaminated Sites, Landfills and Sediments, Venice. Web link:
www.etcanet.org/
Report of the NICOLE Workshop on Source Management,
Helsinki, Web link: www.nicole.org Information gateway: NICOLE
News Service – Announcement 121 also published in Land
Contamination and Reclamation 8 (4) 67-78
Page 3
working in the field of contaminated land. ANCORE will focus its activities not only to today’s EU
member states, but will also be open for members from East Europe.
ANCORE includes currently about 50 research institutes from 16 European countries and covers a
broad range of scientific disciplines involved in the field of contaminated land research (e.g.
hydrology, geology, geochemistry, microbiology, biotechnology, geo-ecology, geophysics).
2.2 CLARINET
The Concerted Action, CLARINET (Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental
Technologies in Europe), started in July 1998 and will continue until mid-2001. CLARINET is a
network of 16 European countries, co-ordinated by the Austrian Environmental Agency and supported
by the European Commission’s Environment & Climate Programme. CLARINET brings together the
combined knowledge of academics, government experts, consultants, industrial landowners and
technology developers. It provides an interdisciplinary network on the sustainable management of
contaminated land in Europe, analyses key-issues in decision-making processes and identifies priority
research needs on technical, environmental and socio-economic topics. Overall, CLARINET focuses
on the underlying scientific basis of risk-based methodologies and aims to stimulate RTD
collaboration in Europe on identified research needs. CLARINET is the successor to the previous
Concerted Action CARACAS (Concerted Action on Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites in
Europe) which completed its work in October 1998. Web link: www.clarinet.at.
The goals of CLARINET are to identify how contaminated land (soils, groundwaters, surface waters)
can be managed effectively and sustainably, to ensure (a) the safe (re-)use of land, and (b) to abate
resulting water pollution to maintain the functionality of soil and (ground) water ecosystems.
CLARINET has four main themes:
•
•
•
•
Soil and groundwater protection
Risk assessment
Remedial technologies
Decision support issues (including socio-economic and political aspects)
CLARINET aims are to develop technical recommendations for the sound decision-making in the
rehabilitation of contaminated sites in Europe, to assess current approaches to contaminated land
management, to identify priority research needs and to stimulate co-ordinated R&D at EU and national
levels.
An international CLARINET conference will be held in Vienna on 21st and 22nd June 2001. The major
objective of this conference will be to present and discuss conclusions from recent and
recommendations for future work with a broad spectrum of participants. Further information on this
conference is available on www.clarinet.at. All researchers and practitioners in the field are cordially
invited to register.
2.3 NICOLE
NICOLE’s overall objectives are to:
• Provide a European forum for the dissemination and exchange of knowledge and ideas about
contaminated land arising from industrial and commercial activities;
• Identify research needs and promote collaborative research that will enable European industry to
identify, assess and manage contaminated sites more efficiently and cost-effectively; and
Page 4
•
Collaborate with other international networks inside and outside Europe and encompass the views
of a wide a range of interest groups and stakeholders (for example, land developers, local/regional
authorities and the insurance/financial investment community).
NICOLE currently has 118 members. Membership fees are used to support and further the aims of the
network, including: technical exchanges, network conferences, special interest meetings, brokerage of
research and research contacts and information dissemination via a web site, newsletter and journal
publications. NICOLE's forthcoming programme was outlined in Section 1.
NICOLE includes an Industry Subgroup (ISG) – with 29 company members. The Industry Subgroup
objectives are to:
• move from problem identification to solution generation;
• find ways to implement identified cost-effective solutions;
• improve communication and co-operation with all stakeholders;
• broaden the focus to include 'brownfields'.
NICOLE also includes a Service Providers Subgroup (SPG) which currently has 16 company
members including small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The SPG represents the varied interests of
consultants, contractors and materials/equipment providers.
NICOLE also includes 75 individual members from the academic sector/research community and 16
members from other organisations, including research planners, non-profit making organisations, other
networks, funding organisations.
3. The City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage
Dr David Miles of the DG12 (Research) of the European Commission outlined the current Third Call
for proposals for the Framework 5 programme (FP5) as regards the Key Action “City of Tomorrow
and Cultural Heritage”. Two proposal deadlines and budgets are in this call.
First Deadline
Opens 15 November 2000
Closes 15 February 2001
Budget approximately 43 Million EURO
Pre-proposal check from 15 November 2000 to
January 2001
Second Deadline
Opens 15 November 2000
Closes 15 October 2001
Budget approximately 26 Million EURO
The call and budgets extend over four themes:
4.1 Sustainable city planning and rational resource management
4.2 Protection, conservation and enhancement of European cultural heritage
4.3 Development and demonstration of technologies for safe, economic, clean, effective and
sustainable preservation, recovery, renovation, construction, dismantling and demolition of
the built environment, in particular for large groups of buildings.
4.4 Comparative assessment and cost effective implementation of strategies for sustainable
transport systems in an urban environment
The first and second calls cover different sub themes, several of which relate to specific topics for
brownfields regeneration. These sub themes are summarised in Table 2. Those suggested as having
relevance to brownfields remediation are highlighted in bold. NICOLE recommends closest scrutiny
is paid to the February 2001 deadline themes.
Page 5
Those interested in proposing projects should check the detailed wording of the call. Proposals that
are out of scope will not be considered. The types of proposals that are possible include RTD
(research, technology development) projects and concerted actions (networks). Complete information
on the call and the types of possible projects is provided via the FP5 home page, web link:
www.cordis.lu/fp5/home.html.
Table 2 Sub themes in the Third Call for Proposals for “The City of Tomorrow and Cultural
Heritage”.
February 2001 Deadline
October 2001 Deadline
4.1.1 Improving urban governance and decision
making
4.1.3
Improving
economic
development,
competitiveness and job creation in city centres and
neighbourhoods
4.2.1 Improving damage assessment on cultural
heritage
4.2.2 Development of innovative conservation
strategies
4.3.2 Optimum use of urban land and rehabilitation
of brownfield sites
4.4.1 Strategic approaches and methodologies in urban
planning towards sustainable urban transport
4.4.2 Comparative assessment and demonstration of
novel transport forms and related infrastructure
4.1.2 Improving the quality of urban life
4.1.3
Improving
economic
development,
competitiveness and job creation in city centres and
neighbourhoods
4.2.2 Development of innovative conservation
strategies
4.2.3 Foster integration of cultural heritage in the
urban setting
4.3.1 Sustainable construction and reconstruction of
large groups of buildings and urban infrastructure
There is a pressure towards larger projects (>500,000 EURO EC contribution), which are seen as more
likely to have a visible European research presence. Mr Miles also emphasised a particular interest in
involving local authorities in proposals and that the benefits for the citizens should be evident in the
proposal. His suggestion was that research/experiments on remediation should not cover more than
40% of the whole project. His preference was for integrated proposals including planning, re-use of
demolition/soil waste, full re-use of the brownfield (e.g. also bringing improvement to surrounding
areas) and developing full stakeholders/end user involvement.
NICOLE has been provided with a full set of the presentation slides and a check list for those
wishing to make proposals. Both have been made available on its web site, web link: www.nicole-org
Information gateway: NICOLE News Service – Announcement 127.
4. Brownfield Initiation in Michigan USA
Lynn Buhl (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality) provided an interesting case study of
brownfields approaches in the USA. In Michigan a “brownfield” is defined as “an abandoned, idle or
under-utilised property whose redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental
contamination.” These are not just urban sites. Brownfield redevelopment can strengthen
communities by:
•
•
•
Page 6
Improving tax base
Increasing employment and recreational opportunities
Reducing urban sprawl/conserving green space
•
•
•
Avoiding costs of infrastructure expansion
Combating negative perceptions about urban centres
Being a catalyst for change in neighbourhood.
In 1998, votes passed the Clean Michigan Initiative, which awarded $335 million for remediation,
primarily of those sites with redevelopment potential. Additional tax incentives were approved by the
state legislature in 2000. Michigan’s approach has tackled three major obstacles to brownfield
redevelopment:
•
•
•
Liability standards
Clean up standards
Funding needs
In addition remediation can be self-implementing, so a liable party has great control over the timing of
its remedial efforts. A survey of 33 cities in April 2000 revealed the following results from changes in
liability, standards & funding:
•
Private investment in brownfield sites: $1.7 billion
•
Job creation: 8,100
Issues remaining to be resolved include:
•
Inconsistent liability standard with federal statute
•
Air quality standards
•
Environmental justice (based on the Federal Civil Rights Act).
The Michigan liability standard is different to the Federal version, which is more stringent. It is
unlikely that a Public Sector organisation could successfully make a case for the Federal Liability
Section to be applied, but a private group (e.g. site neighbour) could take action based on Federal law.
An emerging environmental justice issue is that a disproportionate number of industrial areas are near
minority population areas, which could be seen as discriminators. Hence, a person in one of these
areas could challenge the permit for a company operating near it.
Weblink: information on the Michigan program can be obtained at:
www.deq.state.mi.us/erd/brownfields.
5. Industry and Service Providers Session
The industry and service providers discussion identified two key issues for brownfields regeneration:
•
•
the need for communication between stakeholders, and also with the public as a platform for
confidence and
the need to convince stakeholders that their interests and desires have been satisfied.
Dealing with brownfield remediation is, by its nature, multi-stakeholder and interdisciplinary. Society
has taken a political decision to encourage brownfield re-use. However, like it or not, the profit
motive is the usual driver for redevelopment. One approach to reconciling competing priorities and
the need to secure returns on investment, is to take a view from the desired targets, looking back at
what is necessary to move forwards these targets. It is also useful to take a realistic view of what
constitutes the boundaries to any particular project, i.e. what are assumed as givens. Typically these
givens are: the pollution problem, law, regulations and economics. However, not all of these “givens”
are absolutely fixed. Sometimes an innovation can change the project boundaries and make a
brownfields redevelopment far more attractive. Some examples are:
Page 7
•
out of town opportunities for brownfields on the outskirts of towns, where space and transport
may allow a greater range of final uses, particularly for retail and leisure;
•
use of innovative insurance approaches for example to protect investors from possible
remediation cost overruns;
•
triggers for redevelopment like prestige projects – for example a new stadium, can often serve
as a flagship for a far broader urban renaissance.
The discussions also highlighted two important lessons from past experience. Firstly, marketing is a
vital activity that can significantly increase land values, and so profitability. Marketing may need to
be accompanies by measures that might not directly return a proportion a land area for sale, for
example providing a new access road. Secondly, it is important to consider a range of land uses, not
just a single end use, to maximise the flexibility of a project and its overall marketability.
An important end use is green space. This is not a redundant land use, but is the ‘green lung’ of a
brownfields regeneration, increasing its attractiveness as a place to live and work. Green space often
also decisively marks a break with the past. It can be worth considering a more holistic approach. In
the UK the concept of “master planning” has been developed. In this concept remediation,
redevelopment and landscaping are planned as integrated rather than sequential processes.
Note : This section is based on the report given by Wenter Gevaerts (the Netherlands) Annex 1 lists
the papers presented in this section.
6. Regulators and Service Providers Session
The regulators and service providers session agreed that brownfields remediation is not purely a
technical or scientific problem, but it is an issue for society in general.
Despite the widely recognised need to focus development on brownfield as opposed to greenfield land,
barriers remain to brownfields re-use. These barriers are often cultural and related to risk perception.
Investors are likely to be averse to financial risk, such as the risk of land seeming still tainted in some
way; and of a remediation not working properly or over-running on time and or costs. The attitude of
regulators can be a problem, in particular if they are in a “rule following” as opposed to a “problem
solving” frame of mind. Most importantly, it is the attitudes of people in general, that shape what may
or may not be feasible for brownfield sites re-use.
Solutions to brownfield site problems are far wider than those addressed by remediation. They
encompass a wide range of regeneration issues, for example, job creation, fostering new businesses,
supporting landscapes and involving and assisting communities. For most large projects these
different activities need to be planned and considered in an integrated way (master-planning).
Stakeholders, partnerships and ownership are key words to any brownfields project. Partnerships
need communication. This communication has to be open, honest and clear. Communication may
also need to include education to enable an equal dialogue. The regulator is often the ‘ring-holder’
who sets the boundaries for the available solutions. These boundaries have to be made clear, but they
do not necessarily dictate the choice of the route taken to reach them, i.e. the remedial approach.
“Ownership” of brownfield problems, and the route to their solution, is wider than the “technical”
stakeholder (the regulator, consultant etc). It is local people who have to live with the consequences
of a brownfields project, good or bad. They should be involved in decision making.
Page 8
The session made a number of further statements of belief:
•
•
•
Regarding local communities: “we cannot impose technical solutions on these people’s lives;”
“Parts of the cities of tomorrow will be built on the brownfields of today. This should not
result in second class soil for second class people”.
“New research from the FP5 may be wonderful in theory, but its findings are unlikely to be
taken up, unless backed by a large educational effort”.
Note: this section is based on the report given by Joop Vegter, the Netherlands. Annex 1 lists the
papers presented in this session.
7. Academics and Service Providers
The academics and service providers session identified a series of research needs as a precursor to the
call for City of Tomorrow, and for the workshop in general. Research needs may arise at a national
level, at a bilateral level between countries, or as a broader EU need. The EC FP5 is not the only
platform for European collaborative research, development and demonstration. The EUREKA
programme is also a platform for research between countries in the European Economic Area (EEA)
and other partner countries. Within EUREKA a specific programme “EUROENVIRON” addressed
environmental technologies, including remediation technologies. Weblink: www.euroenviron.com.
Across the five papers presented at this session the following research needs have been distilled:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
better in situ remediation technologies.
better ex situ environmental infrastructure to deal with material taken off site, a large
proportion of brownfields development still depends on "excavate and remove" approaches.
technology transfer and information exchange gateways.
predictive modelling, for example for bio availability and time dependent leachability –
particularly an issue for inorganic contamination problems.
ecological risk criteria development
risk communication
brownfields prevention
understanding the relative cost and benefits of different levels of site characterisation.
developing alternatives to point based site investigations
prediction of long term performance of systems such as barrier walls.
Large brownfield areas such as Bitterfeld pose particular problems. Research is needed on the
optimisation of remedial solutions for such areas. Phyto remediation is seen as a particularly
promising technology.
Three issues were felt to be of particular importance. Firstly, a common platform for considering the
economic, environmental and social criteria in decision making is needed. This has to be inclusive
and facilitate stakeholder involvement in decision making. One approach to this is to develop systems
for assigning monetary values to ALL benefits and impacts. Secondly, a better understanding of time
dependent bioavailability and mobility of heavy metals and organics for specific materials is urgently
needed, to refine current techniques for risk assessment and risk management. Thirdly, international
benchmarking and comparison studies for risk assessment, risk management and decision support
approaches might greatly assist international harmonisation, and identify general underpinning
research needs.
Page 9
Web link: www.clu-in.org/intup where a report of a special session on decision support of the
NATO/CCMS Remediation Pilot Study will be made available in 2001.
Note: This section is based on the report given by Paul Nathanail, UK. Annex 1 lists all papers
presented in this session.
8. Plenary Discussion
The focus of the plenary discussion was on the application of the current state of the art in dealing
with contaminated land to brownfields problems, given the diverse range of stakeholders and their
interests. It is quite clear that there is a broad consensus amongst what might be called the “technical
stakeholders”, that the best approach to decision making is the risk based approach. Web link:
www.nicole.org, Information Gateway, NICOLE News Service, Publications. Number 16
However, it is not clear that this approach is as widely accepted by all other stakeholders involved in
brownfields projects. To a lesser or greater extent, this lack of acceptance is probably due to the
following:
•
•
that not all of the stakeholders who should be involved are involved, or involved at an early
enough stage.
that clearer explanation, and perhaps education, is needed, and that some technical terms such
as “residual risk” are likely to be seized upon in an emotive way.
The three sessions produced complementary and matching discussions. Risk based decision making is
clearly a powerful tool. However, there are two limitations. Firstly, it cannot be assumed that all
stakeholders necessarily immediately accept the principle, even if we believe that given time and
adequate explanation they will come to see its value. Secondly, risk based decision making addresses
only one of many strands important in brownfields decision making. It does seem very hard to
consider these different strands in a holistic way at present, and in a way that is inclusive of all stakeholders.
Three broad project development discussions followed as a result of this plenary.
1. Cost-effective rehabilitation
2. Innovative land management: innovative risk assessment for the efficient use of underground and
surface space
3. Decision support tools (DSTs) including social/economic items and risk communication.
Reports have been prepared by the reporters of each discussion and will be made available on the
NICOLE web site via the NICOLE News Service.
The project development discussion on DSTs has resulted in the initiation of a proposal for the Third
Call of City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage. The project under development is called LUCAS
“Land Use Cycle Appraisal System”. It’s aim is to achieve integration in time, space and decision
elements (i.e. economic, environmental and social) and so support holistic decision making. The
intention is to produce an operating decision support tool. Contacts for further information: Dr Chris
Zevenbergen, Dura Vermeer, the Netherlands, e-mail: [email protected] and Dr Paul
Nathanail, University of Nottingham, UK, e-mail [email protected]
Page 10
Annex 1 Papers Presented at the NICOLE WORKSHOP on
Brownfields: How to change a potential threat into an asset.
Introduction
1.
Status report NICOLE
Paolo Cortesi
2.
Status report CLARINET
Harald Kasamas
3.
Status report ANCORE
Georg Teutsch
4.
Brownfield initiatives: the Michigan Programme
Lynn Buhl, Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, USA.
5.
Brownfield in the 5th Framework Programme David Miles - Head of Unit –
DG Research/City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage.
INDUSTRY & Service Providers Session (Chairman/reporter:Steve
Wallace/Wouter Gevaerts).
6.
Trading brownland
Stewart MacIntyre – Lattice plc.UK
7.
Redevelopment of derelict land: Greenwich Peninsula/Millennium Village
Joint presentation by Ian Parish, Nuttall and Ian Heasman, Taywood, UK.
8.
Standardising Risk Assessment to Facilitate Re-Development Processes; an Australian Case Study.
Karen Cerneaz, Shell Global Solutions, The Netherlands
9.
Profitable site remediation and redevlopment, Rolf Henkler et al, ICI Points.
10.
The resolution project: a Decision Support System for Brownfields redevelopment Giovanna Landi,
FEEM/ENI Group, Italy.
REGULATORS & Service Providers Session Chairman/reporter: Mike
Summersgill/Joop Vegter
11.
Regenerating Brownfields – Working in Partnerships Judith Lowe, Parkman, UK
12.
The Brownfields redevelopment in India, Chris Zevenbergen, DuraVermeer Group, the Netherlands.
13.
Implementation of sustainable development principles in industrial regions by means of environmental
management procedures on example of mining regions
Wlodzimiers Sokol, Central Mining Institute, Poland.
14.
UK White Paper on Land Reclamation Policy and Practice
Jon Rouse, Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, UK.
15
Citizen participation in the Nord-Pas de Calais Brownfield
Catherine Bertram, Mission “Bassin minier”, France
Page 11
ACADEMICS & Service Providers Session (Chairman/reporter: Georg
Teutsch/Paul Nathanail
16.
The Senter-programme for support of technological cooperation in Europe Marco Schwegler, Senter, The
Netherlands.
17.
The environmental behaviour of heavy metals in iron and steel wastes Donna Hepple, University of Paisley,
UK.
18.
Bitterfeld case: Solutions for the Spittelwasser Pollutions
Bert Satijn, SKB, The Netherlands.
19.
Case of redevelopment in Germany
Ròdiger Hotten, Hochtief, Germany
20.
Environmental merit of Brownfield redevelopment – Balancing the value of land
Detlef Grimski, UBA, WG1 on Brownfields CLARINET
Plenary Session
21.
Brownfields: Managing the subsurface
Ed de Mulder, TNO-NITG, The Netherlands
22.
Experiences with Brownfield remediation from Vancouver
Kim Forchhammer, Golder Grundteknik KB, Norway
23.
Back to the future, Sytze Keuning, Bioclear, the Netherlands
Page 12
Annex 2 NICOLE WORKSHOP ON BROWNFIELDS: How to
change a potential threat into an asset, Delegate List
S. (Sandra) Alker
National Brownfield Sites Project
R.P. (Paul) Bardos
NICOLE Webmanager
Ch. (Charlotte) Beillouin
Corus UK Ltd
M.J. (Martin) Bell
ICI group Headquarters North West
C. (Catherine) Bertram
The Nord-Pas de Calais Coalfield Land-Planning.
M. (Martin) Bittens
University of Tubingen
E.C.C. (Ellen) Brandenburg-Sluijter
DuraVermeer
R.J. (Richard) Bredewold
DuraVermeer BV
P. (Patricia) de Bruycker
Solvay S.A.
L.Y. (Lynn) Buhl
Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality
J.W. (John) Davis
The Dow Chemical Company
L. (Ludo) Diels
VITO
C. (Christel) Dittebrandt
Ford Werke AG
P.J. (Peter) van Driel
Fugro Milieu Consult BV
M. (Martin) Dutton
Westlakes Research Institute
D. (David) Edwards
VHE Holdings plc
C. (Christer) Egelstig
JM AB
Th. (Thomas) Ertel
UW Umweltwirtschaft GmbH
M (Marjan) Euser
NICOLE Secretariat
C.E.H.M. (Cees) Buijs
HBG
U. (Uwe) Ferber
Projektgruppe Stadt + Entwicklung
J. (John) Ferguson
Balfour Beatty Ltd
R. (Ruud) Busink
Corus Iron IJmuiden
K. (Kim) Forchhammer
Golder Grundteknik KB
C. (Claudio) Carlon
Consorzio Venezia Ricerche
S.L. (Stephen) Garvin
BRE
K.K.L. (Karen) Cerneaz
Shell Global Solutions
W. ( Wouter) Gevaerts
Tauw NV
P. (Piotr) Cofalka
Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas of
Industrial Areas.
E. (Eric) Gingras
Niton Corporation
P. (Paolo) Cortesi
ENI S.p.A.
R.L. (Rae) Crawford
ExxonMobil
I. (Ido) Croese
Arcadia Heidemij Advise
Page 13
F. (Frédéric) Goldschmidt
CNRSSP
J. (Jasper) Griffloen
NITG-TNO
D. (Detlef) Grimski
UBA
J. (Jadwiga) Gzyl
Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas off
Industrial Areas
H. den Hartog
Tebodin
J. (Joop) Hasselman
TAUW
W.A. ( Willem A.) van Hattem
Port pf Rotterdam
I. (Ian) Heasman
Taylor Woodrow
P.J. (Peter) Leggo
University of Cambridge
J. (Jenna) Lines
Powergen
J. (Judith) Lowe (could not attend)
Parkman
T. (Tuula) Lukander
Niton Europe GmbH
S. (Stewart) MacIntyre
Lattice Property Holdings Ltd
D. (Donna) Hepple
University of Paisley
G. (Gérard) Marceau
ICF Environment
D. Hicks
University of Bath
N. (Nora) Meixner
Ministry for Environment
R.N. van Hilten
XTAC Analytical BV
G.A.M. van Meurs
GeoDelft
B. (Birgit) Hoestrup
COWI Consulting Engineers and Planners AS
R. (Rüdiger)Hotten
Hochtief Umwelt GmbH
Ian (Ian) Humphreys
Brownfields.com
R. (Roger) Jacquet
Solvay S.A.
J. (John) Janse
BioSoil BV
H. (Harald) Kasamas
Clarinet
W. ( Willem) Kat
Corus Steel BV
S. (Sytze) Keuning
Bioclear BV
J. (Jouko) Kinnunen
Neste Chemicals Oy
G. (Giovanna) Landi
FEEM
D. (David) Lax
Taywood Engineering
Page 14
D. (David) Miles
European Community
J. (Jos) Mol
Tebodin
S. (Simon) Moolenaar
IWACO BV
E. (Ed) de Mulder
NITG-TNO
P. (Paul) Nathanail
University of Nottingham
A. W. A. (Lex) Oosterban
Tebodin
T. (Thomas) Paetzold,
HBG
I. (Ian) Parish
Nutall
M. (Mike) Patterson
Golder Associates
A. (Alain) Perez
TotalElfFina
A. (Andrew) Petsonk
J+W Energy and Environment
C. M. (Carol-Lynne) Pettit
BNFL
F. (Frank) Swartjes
RIVM
G.S. (Guy) Pomphrey
DEC Environmental Contractors
G. (Georg) Teutsch
University of Tübingen
K.J. (Kelvin) Potter
Eutech
A. (Arantzazu) Urzelai
LABEIN
H.H.M. (Huub) Rijnaarts
TNO-MEP
C.C.D.F. (Derk) van Ree
GeoDelft
J. (Jon) Rouse
Commission for Architecture and the Built
Environment
H.X. (Hetty) van Rhijn-Stumphius
Gemeetelwerken Rotterdam
H.M.C. (Bert) Satijn
SKB/ NOK
A.J.M. (Lida) Schewald-van der Kley
Port of Rotterdam
M.A. (Marco) Schwengler
Senter
K. (Klaus) Simsch
Deutsche Steinkohle AG
A.J.C. (Anja) Sinke
TNO-MEP
D. (David) Skerritt
Edmund Nuttall
A. Slagmolen
HWZ Milieu
S.L. (Stephen) Smith
Welsh Development Agency
J.E.J. (Jan) Smolders
Dames & Moore
W.A. ( Wlodzimierz) Sokól
Central Mining Institute
N.J.T. Spijkers
Fugro Milieu Consult BV
M. (Mike) Summersgill
VHE technology Ltd
I. (Inaki) Susaeta
Gaiker
Page 15
H.C. (Henk) van Rijswijk
Ministry of Economic Affairs
O. (Onno) van Sandick
Ministry of Environment
H.J. (Johan) van Veen
NICOLE Secretariat
J. (Joop) Vegter
The Technical Committee on Soil Protection (TCB)
J. (Jan) Vermeij
HWZ Milieu
O. (Olaf) Voorwinde
GeoDelft
T. (Terry) Walden
BP Amoco Oil Europe
S. (Steve) Wallace
Lattice Property Holdings Ltd
J. (Jason) Weeks
National Centre for Environmental Technology
C. (Raads) Welvaadt
Corus iron IJmuiden
E. (Eddy) Wille
OVAM
C. (Camilla) Wolf- Watz
IVL-Swedish Environmental Research Institute
C. (Chris) Zevenbergen
DuraVermeer
Annex 3: Source Management - Findings of the May 2000
NICOLE Workshop
Published in Land Contamination and Reclamation 8 (4) 67-78. For further information on this journal visit their
web site on: http://www.btinternet.com/~epppublications/
To order copies please contact Mr Marc Pomel at EPP Publications,
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
This paper sets out an overview of what constitutes "source management" based on papers submitted to a workshop
held by NICOLE, the Network for Industrially Contaminated Land, held in Finland in May 2000. The principal
conclusions of this workshop are that:
• Risk based decision making is the best available paradigm for dealing with the problems posed by land
contamination. Its advantages are that it is systematic and objective, and it provides a consistent and defensible
basis for considering uncertainties, discussing options and making decisions. However, a number of challenges
face practitioners and users of risk assessment and risk management, in particular: public acceptability; dealing
with uncertainty; validation and the development of practical robust and agreed tools.
• In addition to risk management, sustainable development should be explicitly considered in all remediation
decision making for source management.
• Early and effective communication with all legitimate stakeholders is recommended to ensure the earliest and
widest acceptability of any decisions reached.
Page 16

REPORT OF THE NICOLE WORKSHOP Brownfields: How to change a potential

Transcription

Similar documents

Getting Race Ready

Party hard suddenly has new meaning

Rare - Nicole Maloney

Thursday, June 04, 2015

. {(i]o

clicktosave

the Kancamagus Lodge Group Profile

Arianne Zuker (DAYS) “Mum`s The Word”

PR packet back page

Green Development - SWIX Proceedings